The average waterfowl hunter owns one or more artificial decoys which are placed near where the hunter will be hunting to attract wild ducks, geese, and/or other waterfowl close enough for the hunter to shoot them. The vast majority of the decoys available for the hunter to purchase are stationary, meaning they do not move and do not appear to be moving. Traditional floating decoys "just sit there" and do nothing except perhaps being moved around by the wind and/or water currents. On calm days, watching the decoys "move" is about as exciting as watching grass grow--wild waterfowl find it just as interesting.
Over the years, it seems that wild waterfowl have become wise to man's attempts to lure them close enough to be shot and have learned to stay away from anything that does not look like a real waterfowl.
The average duck hunter quickly learns by experience that wild waterfowl often land very close to other live ducks, geese, and/or other waterfowl--much closer on average than they will land to artificial decoys. Wild ducks, geese, and other waterfowl are also much more likely to land near artificial decoys if one or more live waterfowl such as cranes, loons, etc. are swimming or walking amongst the decoys.
As the use of live captive waterfowl for the purpose of decoying wild waterfowl is strictly forbidden by law, hunters have been forced to become increasingly more creative in their methods to lure the wild waterfowl in close enough to shoot at. Therefore, if a duck, goose, or other waterfowl decoy can be made to look and act more like it is real, then the chances of luring wild waterfowl closer to the hunter will be improved.
In the past, hunters hunting in flooded forests for waterfowl would agitate or "kick" the water surface when they saw waterfowl flying close by. The wild waterfowl occasionally mistake the rings, ripples, and waves on the water surface as coming from other live wild waterfowl and fly in to land close enough for the hunter to shoot them. This method works well in areas with lots of cover for the hunter to hide behind, but does not work well in open water such as on lakes, ponds, and streams.
Various mechanical methods have been devised to animate artificial decoys and make them look lifelike. Several U.S. Patents have been issued for innovative use of pull strings connected between the decoy and the hunter which are used to flap wings, rock the decoy back/forth and side/side, rotate the head, and tilt the head down to the water to wet the beak or submerge the head. An example of one of the earliest patents is a decoy with wings that flap when a cord is pulled which is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 74,458 to Wales. A disadvantage of pull strings is that the hunter must move to pull the string which the waterfowl can often easily see and avoid. The decoy usually must also be staked or attached to a rigid object in order to operate acceptably.
Waterfowl decoys with internal electronic game calls have been invented, but have been outlawed for use while hunting (for example, see 1994-1995 Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide, published by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, pg. 26). Decoys with mechanically-driven pneumatic calls have been invented as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,110,245 and 1,185,559 both to Vaughan. The disclosed devices also incorporate a mechanically-driven propeller to simulate a swimming action. One disadvantage of these devices is that it is difficult to make the quacking sound lifelike. There are also other disadvantages as discussed below.
Several other patents have been awarded for motorized decoys with simulated swimming and moving body parts such as feet, flapping wings, swishing tail, bobbing head, etc. Typical examples are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 636,106 to Biddle and 4,612,722 to Ferrell. There have even been disclosures of remote-controlled motorized decoys such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,689,927 to Boston and 5,289,654 to Denny. Motorized decoys have the disadvantage that either mechanical or electrical power must be provided to the drive motor. Hence, one must often wind-up the decoy or replace the battery. Additionally, swimming decoys propelled by a motor-driven propeller can easily get "stuck" if the propeller gets stopped with a weed or stick and, accordingly, these devices don't work well in very shallow water. The motors and gears also often make so much noise that the wild ducks, geese, and/or other waterfowl can readily hear them operating. These devices also tend to be very expensive. They also require lots of maintenance, for example to dry out the devices in order to prevent rusting. Use of remote-controlled devices is not recommended in rain, fog, and heavy dew situations. Finally, several of these mechanical and electronic devices are now being outlawed for use while hunting (for example, see 1994-1995 Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide, pg. 26). Devices that can't be readily turned off can also be mistaken as real by the hunter's bird dog and are then retrieved by the dog instead of the hunter's actual kill.
A device to create ripples on the surface of the water by using a submerged, battery-operated, motor-driven propeller is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,375,337 to Yerger. As with the motorized decoys discussed above, this device is prone to weed clogging, requires battery recharging, and requires maintenance to prevent rusting. This device is typically also placed and operated such that the ripples do not emanate directly from any of the close-by decoys, and therefore does not provide a realistic decoy motion.
Various inflatable artificial decoys have been invented to provide life-like motion. For example, disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 2,341,028 to Fay is a tethered balloon decoy that is moved up/down by a pull string. The problem with this decoy is that it must be filled with a lighter than air gas such as helium. Disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 1,673,479 to Christmas is a toy that has an internal balloon that is inflated and then allowed to exhaust the air to move the toy on the water surface. The disadvantage of this device is that it requires frequent catching and refilling with air. It's also noisy.
A pressure bulb connected by a long tube to the decoy has been used to cause the decoy to quack when the pressure bulb is squeezed such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 2,546,189 to Keep. Similar pressure bulb mechanisms have been developed to cause the decoy's wings to flap while quacking such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,227,242 to Boutin and 2,909,859 to Christmas, and to cause movement of the decoy's head while quacking such as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,034,245 to Lynch. The main disadvantage of quacking decoys is that it is real difficult to tune them to sound lifelike. Decoys with air-actuated wing, head, tail, etc. movement are also quite expensive and can not be readily retrofit to existing decoys. The simulated movement is also not very lifelike.
Accordingly, with the use of modern plastics technology, it is an object of the present invention to provide an inexpensive, simple to use, low-maintenance device that can be readily retrofit to existing, floating waterfowl decoys to provide realistic motion of said decoys, the operation of which does not readily give away the hunter's location.
The purpose of the present invention is to lure more live waterfowl significantly closer to the hunter to increase the number of waterfowl that the hunter can shoot at, kill, and accordingly bag.
Another purpose of the present invention is to reduce the number of wounded and needlessly killed waterfowl that do not die immediately because the hunter took a "long shot," but instead either fly off or swim off and die where the hunter cannot find them.